On April 20, 2014 2:18:08 PM EDT, Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
wrote:
On 4/20/2014 10:15 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
Right. The alternate defense against a WG charter that allowed for
anything
more than wordsmithing was to insist that proponents of a working
group go do
the work of a working group to evaluate the protocol and figure out
if it
needed any changes before such a working group would be chartered.
Defense is an interest choice of words. It tends to imply an
obligation
to start a working group even when there is no work known to be needed.
Working groups are expensive. The costs they incur are justified only
when there is known to be a need.
Requiring clear statements about the need is not 'defensive'; it is
merely being professional and responsible.
That's one theory. Considering the current state of play in which DMARC isn't
even being submitted to the IETF, the alternative theory that the developers of
DMARC were not interested in anything other than a rubber stamp approval from
the IETF seems to me to be much more consistent with the available information.
I think I'm done with this argument.
Scott K